On p.74 of her book, 'Madeleine,' Kate McCann describes how she was...'hitting out at things, banging (her) fists on the metal railing of the veranda, trying to expel the intolerable pain inside.' This is no doubt the same railing atop the same veranda at which Kate was afterwards pictured coyly holding Madeleine's 'cuddle-cat' where the media photographers stationed below could see it. It's about two inches wide and appears more wooden than metallic, but that's beside the point, which is that Kate unswervingly describes herself as hitting the limited target area with her fists. Twenty pages (less than 24 hours) later and, for the first time, Kate 'noticed the ugly purple, blue and black bruises on the sides of (her) hands, wrists and forearms...Gerry reminded her of how she'd been 'banging her clenched fists on the veranda railing and the apartment walls the night before.' She could 'only vaguely remember it.' Well you wouldn't, would you? After all, twenty pages is history.

'Madeleine' by Kate McCann is nothing if not a littany of explanations, many of which deal with seemingly trivial details - seemingly. When it comes to describing her other 'bruising' encounter, with the PJ on September 7, she has this to say, among other things, regarding the video of Martin Grime and his dogs at work (p.249): 'The dogs ultimately alerted. I felt myself starting to relax a little.'

You did what?!

It makes absolutely no difference whether the child in question is three or thirty-three. If a mother whose child is missing, and who 'believes they were alive' when they left home (or were taken), is suddenly and unexpectedly told by someone in a position to know that indications are the child is dead, what is she most likely to do? Faint is what. Like the innumerable mothers of young servicemen lost during the two world wars, when they received their 'special telegrams.' Only on recovering their composure would they want or even be able to deal with, a more detailed explanation, like 'You're telling me my daughter possibly died in the apartment before they took her away?'

It would take more than an aspirin to help a compassionate mother cope with that.

And how did the other half of this scientifically sophisticated partnership react when he heard the news?

'When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.' (p.250).

This statement is replete with significance. As is the one that follows it:

'From what I saw of the dogs' responses this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here. We would later learn that in his written report, PC Grime had emphasized that such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence.'

So, 'When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month...'

Valid under what circumstances, might one ask? A court of law perhaps? And why on earth should anyone desperate to find their missing child be pre-occupied with the legal weight of evidence, indicators, suggestions or arguments? The status of Madeleine McCann was, and is, wholly unaffected by such considerations. The only people genuinely concerned with 'validity' in this context were the parents, because the dogs did not confine their intelligence to one place and corpses are not noted for moving around unassisted.

Gerry went on to answer reporter Sandra Felguieras with: "I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about cadaver dogs, and they're incredibly unreliable."

As Kate was saying, Gerry's pre-occupation 'later that month' was with sniffer-dog evidence. Obviously. Well I for one fail to see the obvious necessity for questioning such things outside of one specific context, and that is not the endeavour to locate a missing Madeleine McCann.

Nevertheless, 'Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.'

Hardly reassuring background knowledge, given that it had already been explained to Kate that the dog(s) involved in elucidating the circumstances of her daughter Madeleine's disappearance had yet to make a false alert. Unless of course medical practitioners are accustomed to dismissal on account of their colleagues' mis-diagnoses.

We must replay this little excerpt from Kate's book in its entirety now, in order to highlight her cunning juxtaposition of tense.

The author, don't forget, is in the throes of recounting her experience of being interviewed under caution and faced with video footage of a sniffer-dog at work. She proceeds with 'When researching...later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.'

So, at the time of Kate's interview as 'arguida,' Gerry hadn't discovered anything. And yet, 'from what I saw of the dogs' responses this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here.'

Most certainly.

Not for the first time are we treated to an example of Kate McCann's clairvoyance. She obviously felt able to 'relax a little,' not solely on account of what she perceived to be an inexact science, but because she was able to discern a class of behaviour in Martin Grime's animals that Gerry, in his future research, hadn't identified yet.

Other mothers in such circumstances would be climbing the walls in desperation. Not Kate. Her account of the truth portrays her as having been cool, calm, collected and pre-cogniscent. Or maybe she was in a state of panic. Perhaps she'd looked into the future and seen both herself and her husband going to the dogs; before they'd considered the matter scientifically of course.

Dr Roberts is right imo. Wouldn't parents who had no idea what had happened to their child just feel absolutely desolate at hearing that a cadaver dog had alerted in the place where their child was last seen? The McCanns, though, seek to discredit the dogs, and hedge their bets by coming up with reasons for the cadaver odour.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

Leaving no stone unturned...unless the police show you a cadaver dog alerting in two places of the apartment where your daughter was last known to be...then sod turning the stones & start researching probalbly the most compelling evidence against youVery good point about Kate relaxing...so she knew at the time of the video evidence of the dogs that Gerry would unearth his incredibly unreliable evidence(which is?)...when tested scientifically of course

my doctor tells me i have a terminal illness...i start to relaxmy mechanic tells me if i dont put oil into the engine,my car will be unrepairable...i start to relaxof course i dont have much medical or mechanical knowledge so i tend to listen to people who have the knowledge...Kate would rather not,i guess?

As with Hideho and her fantastic work on Videos, Scotland Yard asked her to send certain videos into them, I wonder if anyone from mccann files have got ALL of Dr Roberts posts protected/copied imo his observations would if nothing else surely help the Scotland yard officers who seem to be having a few problems with the McCanns and their Tapas friends guilt, could some nice person send them on to Redwood and his gang Dr Roberts should be incharge of this case if he was the case would be sorted and ALL CULPRITS in prison now imo.

I know the majority of us on the forums know much more about this case than people who just rely on the select PR spin in the media, but there are such glaring inconsistencies in the stories that SY must see that.

From the very beginning the stories, too numerous to mention here, but including the shutters, the checks, the locked, unlocked doors, the inane blogs, the life saving on the plane, the stolen wallet, the drunk in the road, must raise red flags to any decent copper in SY.

So why is this review taking so long and as far as we know not one person from that holiday has been interviewed. Now it seems they want more money! This case stinks and if this is just a paper shuffling exercise because nobody has the guts to start any real detective work they've conned the public purse again. All IMO!

This article also implies that the timeline that Kate has brought in the book with regard to the questioning and the knowledge of the dogs is questionable at the least. So when did Gerry read up about the dogs? Before the questioning in Portimão, so that Kate knew that she could "relax" or after they were shown the films of the dogs, which would be impossible. She writes that it was later in the month, which month? All this only shows that everything was on big lie.

...and why does she need to 'innocentise' the bruises on her arms and hands I wonder? Those bruises on her upper arms look for all the world like the someone had been trying to restrain her at some point...

Carolina wrote:This article also implies that the timeline that Kate has brought in the book with regard to the questioning and the knowledge of the dogs is questionable at the least. So when did Gerry read up about the dogs? Before the questioning in Portimão, so that Kate knew that she could "relax" or after they were shown the films of the dogs, which would be impossible. She writes that it was later in the month, which month? All this only shows that everything was on big lie.

Interestingly was this not around the same point when Gerry cracked and fell to his hands and knees, saying (I've forgotten what, please englighten me, something like "we've had it", "its all over"

I'm quite interested in how Gerry and Kate both support each other through the whole of this.I get the impression that as Kates speciality was anesthesia she was the one who drugged the children to make them sleep,Kate also did not get the dosage right for Maddie (maybe she was now tolerant) then Maddie got up, stood on the sofa, fell off... cracked her head open.

(I'm open to suggestions that the night she went 'missing' may not have been the actual night it happened hence Mrs fenn hearing crying.So, it was Kate's fault, however Gerry was complicit. Gerry then decided to instigate the cover up, listing all the possible eventualities about having the other two children taken away, losing their homes, their careers etc etc.

Gerry then stayed strong until the police station, at which point he cracked. Kate then took over as the strong one in the relationship whilst Gerry Grieved. Part of me wonders who is the lead now in this pact. I also wonder who else from the Tapas actually knows it all. Perhaps they all started lying as they all neglected their children thus 'it' could happen to any of them, 'it' being abduction in their eyes.But im sure some of them must now suspect.

The detectives in Scotland Yard must know everything that we have pointed out. It is whether the politicians allow them to go ahead I think.

So, it was Kate's fault, however Gerry was complicit. Gerry then decided to instigate the cover up, listing all the possible eventualities about having the other two children taken away, losing their homes, their careers etc etc.

Think your very warm loopdaloop

SY must ...although Eddie has given us a strong indication of what has happened...SY,PJ need the evidence that supports the dogs alerts,there is imo circumstantial evidence that point to the parents & possibly inadmissable evidence ie phonecalls txts emails,im no expert on law but in a high profile case like this i would think the authorities would need the convictions to be watertight & appeal proof

playing a very much devils advocate...like Paxman lets go through the dogs evidence

Eddie indicating a dead body in 5a with no records of anyone ever dying there...is there a possibility that an unrecorded death happened there ? Eddie indicating a dead body in the scenic,again with no records of a reported death..same question as above ?

The report from Lowe regarding the dna in the boot,not sure this is strong enough evidence likely to secure a conviction,just how would a judge instruct a jury on the dogs evidence?...dna was that missing piece of the jigsaw...or that key piece of information,now its a guilty conscience,a body or Derek Acorah

...and why does she need to 'innocentise' the bruises on her arms and hands I wonder? Those bruises on her upper arms look for all the world like the someone had been trying to restrain her at some point...

Those on her hands look like she's been flailing out at the person or persons restraining her.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

...and why does she need to 'innocentise' the bruises on her arms and hands I wonder? Those bruises on her upper arms look for all the world like the someone had been trying to restrain her at some point...

Those on her hands look like she's been flailing out at the person or persons restraining her.

I think this photo is a very old copy someone has kept on their PC, because I seem to remember it vanishing off the net shortly after it appeared on 3As. Since then I've only seen copies of this photograph with the bruises airbrushed out, other than trying to hide the fact that at some point she appeared to have needed to be been restrained why would they feel the need to do this?

...and why does she need to 'innocentise' the bruises on her arms and hands I wonder? Those bruises on her upper arms look for all the world like the someone had been trying to restrain her at some point...

Those on her hands look like she's been flailing out at the person or persons restraining her.

I think this photo is a very old copy someone has kept on their PC, because I seem to remember it vanishing off the net shortly after it appeared on 3As. Since then I've only seen copies of this photograph with the bruises airbrushed out, other than trying to hide the fact that at some point she appeared to have needed to be been restrained why would they feel the need to do this?

Sorry, but do you mean 'why would they feel the need to restrain her?' - perhaps there was a violent melt-down at some point, resulting in a child being fatally injured.

...and why does she need to 'innocentise' the bruises on her arms and hands I wonder? Those bruises on her upper arms look for all the world like the someone had been trying to restrain her at some point...

Those on her hands look like she's been flailing out at the person or persons restraining her.

I think this photo is a very old copy someone has kept on their PC, because I seem to remember it vanishing off the net shortly after it appeared on 3As. Since then I've only seen copies of this photograph with the bruises airbrushed out, other than trying to hide the fact that at some point she appeared to have needed to be been restrained why would they feel the need to do this?

Sorry, but do you mean 'why would they feel the need to restrain her?' - perhaps there was a violent melt-down at some point, resulting in a child being fatally injured.

(I can't really see bruises on her hands, incidentally)

Look around the lateral edge of her left hand and up to the first joint of her thumb on that hand. The bruising seems to extend to the back of her hand in that area.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

...and why does she need to 'innocentise' the bruises on her arms and hands I wonder? Those bruises on her upper arms look for all the world like the someone had been trying to restrain her at some point...

Those on her hands look like she's been flailing out at the person or persons restraining her.

I think this photo is a very old copy someone has kept on their PC, because I seem to remember it vanishing off the net shortly after it appeared on 3As. Since then I've only seen copies of this photograph with the bruises airbrushed out, other than trying to hide the fact that at some point she appeared to have needed to be been restrained why would they feel the need to do this?

Sorry, but do you mean 'why would they feel the need to restrain her?' - perhaps there was a violent melt-down at some point, resulting in a child being fatally injured.

(I can't really see bruises on her hands, incidentally)

Sorry Wintabells, I know why someone might have had a need to restrain her, that was my sad sarcastic attempt at humour.

AnnaEsse wrote:Dr Roberts is right imo. Wouldn't parents who had no idea what had happened to their child just feel absolutely desolate at hearing that a cadaver dog had alerted in the place where their child was last seen? The McCanns, though, seek to discredit the dogs, and hedge their bets by coming up with reasons for the cadaver odour.

Agreed 100%. The McCanns reactions are so far off the mark for parents of a truly missing child. Clearly if one really believed that their child had been abducted and they heard that there was some evidence or indication that the child might be dead, their first reaction would have been complete and utter shock. One has to wonder why the McCanns reaction was so clinical, defensive, and legally minded rather than emotional. It is the McCanns reactions and how bizarre and odd they are that has led me to suspect them.

The same parents who say they "forgive" the Peado or Kate says that took Madeleine away from them, but go after the the Police Officer that only ever wanted to get to the bottom of what happened to Madeleine AND LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN, what is wrong with that Kate and Gerry.................if your innocent of any worng doing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AnnaEsse wrote:Dr Roberts is right imo. Wouldn't parents who had no idea what had happened to their child just feel absolutely desolate at hearing that a cadaver dog had alerted in the place where their child was last seen? The McCanns, though, seek to discredit the dogs, and hedge their bets by coming up with reasons for the cadaver odour.

Agreed 100%. The McCanns reactions are so far off the mark for parents of a truly missing child. Clearly if one really believed that their child had been abducted and they heard that there was some evidence or indication that the child might be dead, their first reaction would have been complete and utter shock. One has to wonder why the McCanns reaction was so clinical, defensive, and legally minded rather than emotional. It is the McCanns reactions and how bizarre and odd they are that has led me to suspect them.

Very telling indeed. in all walks of life,no matter who you are, or what yoursocial standing or situation is, whenyour child goes missing, I wouldassume you would fall into a state ofhelplessness and abject mental povertyand seek and provide all the help to andfrom the proper authorities available tohelp find your missing child. However, not in this case. They obstructed,lied, failed to assist and set about 'challenging'all evidence that contravened their version.This, I believe will be their ondoing.

ive said it before -and asked many times -- why the trust of the other tapas friends ? they didnt know them that well --- i would have to be asking them questions all of them -- and they are pointing their fingers at murrat -- isnt it telling all the trust they have in the tapas crew

...and why does she need to 'innocentise' the bruises on her arms and hands I wonder? Those bruises on her upper arms look for all the world like the someone had been trying to restrain her at some point...

Those on her hands look like she's been flailing out at the person or persons restraining her.

I think this photo is a very old copy someone has kept on their PC, because I seem to remember it vanishing off the net shortly after it appeared on 3As. Since then I've only seen copies of this photograph with the bruises airbrushed out, other than trying to hide the fact that at some point she appeared to have needed to be been restrained why would they feel the need to do this?

Sorry, but do you mean 'why would they feel the need to restrain her?' - perhaps there was a violent melt-down at some point, resulting in a child being fatally injured.

(I can't really see bruises on her hands, incidentally)

Look around the lateral edge of her left hand and up to the first joint of her thumb on that hand. The bruising seems to extend to the back of her hand in that area.

why is her hand contorted in that unnatural position?anything masonic about it?